• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

War in Ukraine

The way I see it, there were only two ways to shut this down immediately. One was immediately send large amount of Western/ NATO troops - a line in the sand that wouldn't have been worth it to Putin, in my opinion. Sounds quite unlikely with how pathetic all of our governments and armed forces are - and how, as usual, we well overrated Russian forces.
The other would have been to immediately capitulate, or to force Ukraine to capitulate (oh dear, Zelensky had an accident, look at this shiny politician the EU and Putin says is fine).
I struggle to think either option was really feasible. Obviously, something could still happen to Zelensky but it will be just an unfortunate accident.
This has followed classic Cold War proxy war doctrines - which it always was going to. Both sides need a way to save face when this ends. And then they can say how they actually won - or just ignore it aka Afghanistan or Vietnam.

I don't see sending Nato troops is realistic unless an actual Nato country is attacked. If your soldiers are going to die in someone's else's war you better have the public behind it as you're talking about the blood price.

Russia have a reason to fight, it's a Slavic border country, for them this is akin to an enemy being in Wales would be for us. Not that much nationalism actually exists in this country anymore after three generations of social liberalism and leftism attacking, demonising and punishing any form of nationalism.....I mean who would actually fight for the pride parade mob? They can't even maintain the small numbers they have in the military as it is.

What I think we can be sure of is that Ukraine are going to undergo a power struggle. Trump is going to want Zelensky to face up to the military realities on the ground to negotiate for peace. What will be fascinating will be how the rest of Nato responds to that....because up to now they have been as gung ho as Biden. If they change their tune does this mean that Zelensky and the Ukrainian military establishment sue for peace?

I'm doubtful personally....In fact I think accepting the reality of the battlefield situation would mark any leader for death....I suppose similar to Michael Collins.

So I think you're right, an negotiated settlement with Russia would only work in Ukraine if a power struggle saw its nationalist forces removed from power......Personally I don't see that happening but what do I know.

I think the war will continue until one side collapses....it's going to be horrible....That was the madness that was decided on once 2022 was discarded and maybe that's what happens. I certainly don't see Trump continuing to spend tens of billions supporting another foreign war.
 
You literally once argued that Halifax had the correct position in WW2. I don't think you actually think this, but it's symptom that the world is complex and simply opting for a 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' way of viewing life doesn't translate to international politics and grand strategy. Sadly I think you struggle with this nuance.

I've always argued Ukraine should be allowed to end the war on realistic terms. The problem as I continually point out and you continually ignore is that Putin is not interested in a comprising peace, and that without real tangible ability to actually stop Putin from just reinvading (such as NATO membership for Ukraine), any 'peace' is temporary at most and will just lead to worse results for both the west and Ukraine.

Ukrainians begging for supplies to fight for their own independence = people like me wanting other people to do their fighting for them. Pure loony toons.

This old Kremlin talking point. Demanding an election which you wouldn't even recognise while allowing releasing Russia of it's democratic obligations. Why not allow all of Ukraine and Crimea a free and fair referendum (one not observed by the socialist workers party) as to if they would like be Ukrainian or Russian?





I didn't know you were in favour of people dying of cancer... You must be right, as youre on here and not in a lab curing cancer?

Seriously why aren't you trying to cure cancer right now? I can't stand people like you who claim to not want people dying of cancer but aren't actively out curing cancer.

I'm going to stop there because typing that out made me feel so disingenuously stupid. What you wrote should make you feel the same.

Whataboutism concedes the point.

If you were a russian I think this point might carry but you're not. Being concerned about your country waging a colonial war of aggression on its neighbours is perfectly valid. Supporting a third party country hostile to your own as it conducts a brutal war and echoing it's talking points as gospel is wrong.

Again, more whataboutism.

The first gulf war? The one which was caused by Iraq deciding it's neighbour Kuwait didn't have right to statehood so he started a brutal and unprovoked invasion. The war which ended in the total victory and liberation of Kuwait with almost no coalition casualties and led to the humbling of a brutal dictator but yet apparently made everything worse? Stirling.... If you had opposed that interest of letting Saddam win and allowing the global supply of oil to be further disrupted I'd have definitely called you an appeaser and an apologist.

Right, so to use a Russia is just totally winning argument for a hindsight peace deal when Russia is actually not just totally winning (in the grand scheme of things - it's winning in some ways of course) is not a sensible arguement. Glad we agree.

Could you be more specific?

This is the whole point, eventually it does become your problem. If might equals right and you can have things just because you want them, you end up with a Falklands situation where our interests are harmed. We live in a world where we submit ourselves to law, if you abandon that world it's only us who will lose out.

So much wrong with this arguement. Firstly if your solution is that nuclear blackmail should always be respected. Every country in the world will proliferate. How does that make the world safer?

Secondly Ukraine literally non-proliferated at the request of the west (and Russia) in exchange that it's sovereignty would be respected. To turn your back on this is in itself a decision, a decision with consequences. All of this only increases the likelihood of a nuclear exchange, not decreases it.


Data and polling says the total opposite, I think people are very concerned about outsourcing their countries energy supply to unstable dictators because of some bonkers net zero target or whatever political drive is in fashion.

They are totally different conflicts which are not directly comparable in hardly any way. To try to compare these is just glib and disingenuous at best. Pure Kremlin guff at worse.

Depends on what the treaty was. As you suggest from your 'evidence'. A total surrender deal (appeasement) would have been highly costly to the UK and would accelerate us to another world war.

If only such a thing existed beyond 'pwease just surwender ukwaine'...

What would Russia compromise on? Not taking more land isn't a compromise....

Agreed. Good thing no one is making you.

Refer you to my point above. What will Russia concede on?

Lining up some fresh cope already for when Trump lets you down. Lovely stuff.

Stay warm.
Do you live in Leeds by any chance?
 
You literally once argued that Halifax had the correct position in WW2.

He did.

Halifax was being rational.

Churchill, like Zelensky is today, was literally basing his entire war strategy on getting America physically into the war. It wasn't happening....American opinion was against it even if the US president was secretly keen....it's the same now but the big difference is now we have nukes.

We lucked out in WW2......Well, if you consider what happened afterwards as worth winning.

If Hitler hadn't decided on operation Barbarossa in 41 we were toast......He said he wouldn't fight a two front war and but that's what he ended up deciding on (probably because of his own health concerns he wanted victory before he declined).

Hitler was an all or nothing kind of guy...If he had played the percentages he could have divided up Europe, with Stalin taking Poland and Finland.....But it was always about destroying communism for him.

There was no way Churchill could have known what Hitler was going to do.....Similar to Hitler he was all or nothing.
 
Last edited:

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top